Tag: Darwinism

I majored in the Liberal Arts for the Human Services, so I’m not very informative of the Sciences. However, I can just say this whole “debate” on Creation and Evolution is just a bunch of “misunderstanding” of one another on various “issues” within this topic. I’ll just share my own perspective that I feel this Evolution theory of “survival of the fittest” bring on prejudice, like racism-see personal story, classism, etc…

Grant B this is a great movie. We have shown it on campus a few times as well.

Remi P. wrote Wed, February 23, 2011 8:58:33 AM on your link: “This is the worst “documentary” I have ever seen. They used extremists for the anti-religion people (such as the prof from UMM who is a total douche). Also, most of the points are not proven. He says everything is against us, Darwinists are everywhere and he never proves it and says stuff that’s it. He only creates a climate of fear. He also makes really horrible shortcuts between Darwinists and nazis; those two concepts have nothing to do with each others. The Nazis were supported in part by creationists (i.e. Catholics) but he does not talk about that. This is only a propaganda documentary to feed in more Fox News ideas. I really hope someone will, one day, make a documentary on the same topic as Expelled, but without trying to pull people apart but rather describing in an objective way the situation as well as solutions to those problems.”

Sal

Yes, he was not only supported by the Catholic Pope (not all of his followers of Catholicism-as my parents were so at the time in the Philippines during WWII; This is just one example how we got to be careful to not categorize groups of people. Just as NOT all Germans were behind Hitler. Ever seen the movie “Valkyrie -2008?-), but by many other groups (e.g. American scientists, some Arab Muslim nation heads, etc..). The swatzika symbol might’ve came out of Hinduism.

Remi P Wed, February 23, 2011 9:06:29 AM wrote: “I have seen another film that is pretty much as bad as this one which is Religulous. It is pretty much saying that religion is ridiculous with the same methods as Expelled. It is terrible. There is no objectivity or middle ground in the American society nowadays.”

Remi: I’ve done a lot of research on this topic that’s linked below that video an…d still learning. We all don’t know the answers, but as long as we RESPECT one another’s opionions (based on each indviduals experience and background, which we are all created unique and different) . Seek and you’ll find!!

Sal

Remi: Yeah…lol!! I actually have seen that film by Bill Mahr, which a friend of mine didn’t enjoy watching it with me too. i actually liked it as I watched it with an open-mind “trying” to understand a guy (raised with parents having 2 different religions) “trying” to search for “answers”. He (like anyone doing one’s own film) was very biased, but show’s again how we all come from different experiences and backgrounds.

Khayam R. commented on your link Wed, February 23, 2011 11:04:42 AM wrote: “sal, this is a really awful movie. ben stein just attacks the theories behind evolution while never showing us the evidence behind creative design besides the testimony of scientists who aren’t very well respected in their fields. in addition, claiming that galileo’s times were easier for free thinkers is anything but the truth. galileo was charged with heresy and imprisoned for preaching a heliocentric solar system. he was eventually forced to recant what he found from his research. none of the scientists in the movie that proposed intelligent design were subject to that sort of persecution; they were simply frowned upon by their colleagues.”

Sal

Ben was just focusing on how the education system in America is just one-sided (e.g. not open to Creation) and he doesn’t have any “professional” background on the subject on hand. He is Jewish and was just defending his faith’s beliefs on “Creation” against attacks of secular schools. Here is a blog I found “somewhat” relating to what you just shared about=> More on Ben Stein and Expelled jgkeegan.wordpress.com

Define truth? A “good of friend” of mine said this..”What’s 1 + 1?”..2, right? How do we know this? Is it “obvious”? It may be for some people, but not for others. Sorry, it’s 11:30pm right now as I’m responding to this, my brain is kind of “slow” now. I’ll get back to your on this “deep question”!! I can only think of this response if you are referring to this Truth…

Can you see the wind?

“I’ve seen the effects of the wind, but I’ve never seen the wind. There’s a mystery to it.” -Billy Graham (see faith)

Andrew H Wed, February 23, 2011 11:14:23 AM commented on your link wrote: “but that assertion is true without evidence. Is there a problem with using evidence for evidence’s truth? Sometimes, for the case of accepting evidence as a means to truth, we have to accept things on faith without evidence. Like accepting evidence on faith.”

Sal

Exactly..faith! I didn’t believe there is “a” Creator because of “material” evidence, I believed through my Catholic faith growing-up as a kid.

Khayam R Wed, February 23, 2011 11:17:49 AM wrote: “andrew, faith is enough to form a hypothesis, but you need evidence to prove the hypothesis.”

Andrew H Wed, February 23, 2011 11:21:02 AM commented on your link.: wrote: “won’t the evidence be the same for confirming and disconfirming Christian theories?”

Sal [Thu, Feb. 24th 11′]: Again, I’m not a “science-guy”, but faith isn’t proven through theories or evidence. As a popular saying from the Bible..

“Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see.”-Hebrews 11

I got into my “faith” through a personal encounter in need of a Savior during a “difficult-time” growing-up (during my early college years-see story). Each individual encounters their faith differently. Just like how people need to lose weight by trying out a “new” diet program and results vary with each individual. Well, my faith has been “proven” (sometimes I have my ups and downs each day) through answered prayers, knowing what I’m grateful/thankful each day (I’m reminded of this almost at my workplace working with mentally-physically challenged adults (Andrew, I’m sure you can relate as you worked at the same group home) ! However, if you really want to get “scientific”, check out Biblical Archaeology!

Khayam R Wed, February 23, 2011 11:21:34 AM wrote: “andrew, i’m not sure what you mean by that. could you provide an example???”

Andrew H commented on your link. Wed, February 23, 2011 11:26:50 AM wrote: “I’d probably have to stipulate at this point, the point made about proof. We can question what that means. What do we speak of when we mean proof?”

Khayam R Wed, February 23, 2011 11:32:22 AM commented on your link. wrote: “it’s okay andrew, let’s not evaluate a religious theory anyways. it’s bound to offend someone. i don’t think people are wrong for having faith; i just think you should have more than just your faith before you declare something to be the truth. keep in mind that we have countless religions in the world who are 100% certain that they know the truth, yet they all disagree on the ultimate path to salvation. this tells me that most of them are wrong.”

Sal: After I came into my Christian faith my first year in college, I still had lots of questions (e.g. where races came from, all religions lead to one God?, etc..). I still do and I share my current “seeking” (research) via my websites (e.g. GoodnewsEverybody.com-Religious, World Religions, etc... My personal challenge is to call on God and ask ..” are You real?…why?..”

Andrew H commented on your link. Wed, February 23, 2011 11:39:35 AM wrote: “I think there has been a tremendous push from the enlightenment to seek evidence, which some things cannot be proven by evidence but we accept them on faith anyhow, as I’ve mentioned about accepting evidence as a good means of acquiring truth. Ultimately, I dont’ think finding proof through evidence leaves us with uncontroversiality. Maybe, our understanding of truth is very off base also… I’m no means a nihilist about truth, but I love thinking about it.”

Sal: It’s in our human nature to “seek truth” as curious human beings…“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”–Matthew 7:7. There is a story in the Torah or “Old Testament” (Bible) during the beginning of Creation

Khayam R commented on your link. Wed, February 23, 2011 11:39:46 AM wrote: “andrew, since both creative design and evolution are supposed to be scientific, i would like to judge both theories based on the scientific method: 1. propose a question, 2. do some research, 3. form a hypothesis, 4. test the hypothesis, 5. determine if the hypothesis is true of false from the results of your experiment, 6. report your results if the hypothesis is true or start over from step 3 if the hypothesis is false.”

Khayam R commented on your link Wed, February 23, 2011 11:41:09 AM wrote: “andrew, i don’t you could base everything on evidence. sometimes faith and intuition help, but the majority of your findings should be based on objective evidence. otherwise, how do you stay grounded on what’s factual and what you believe???”

Andrew H commented on your link. Wed, February 23, 2011 11:43:03 AM wrote: “maybe I’m willing to give up that tie between fact and belief or at least value it less. Maybe this is attributed to my skepticism about objective reality…lol”

Sal [Sunday, February 27th 2011] : Again, I’m not into scientific reasoning. I was trying to find a video that speaks the “scientific language” and found this one (??? shrugging my shoulder with uncertainty)…

What do you think? A friend of mine told me God is not in the same “time” as we are currently presently living at. He’s the Alpha & Omega (Beginning and End-Revelations 22:13) and the “same yesterday, today, and forever” [Hebrew 13:8]. We gotta think outside of the box, but we can’t think the way He does because He’s God!!

Remi P Wed, February 23, 2011 11:43:52 AM commented on your link. wrote: “Sal: I am not sure my message got across the way I meant it to be. I am not denying the fact that some researchers are mocked and humiliated by peers when they try to work on a field that rely on religion and science. What I am saying is that this documentary is nothing but propaganda as well mind manipulation. The last part of my first comment means that I wish for someone to treat this subject in an intellectual/social way. This subject has to be treated with the eye of journalism and true investigation on the cause and consequences of this problem. Expelled only works on attacking claims against science portraying it as an anti-religious society. This, in fact, is not true. The claims are not supported by arguments in the film, or often, only certain claims are but not the ones that send a hateful message. I am far from being an anti-religious person and I am a scientific.”

Sal [Sunday, February 27th 2011] I understand Remi..I was trying to reply to your two comments in a quick short of time as I wanted to share my “reply” as soon as I can before there were going to be more comments. I wished FB could have a reply thread (like You tube) to each comment, which one isn’t able to reply back until the the end of all the comments like what happened last week (30 comments by the time I got home). Thus, I had to make this blog for easier response and viewing. I’m actually anti-religious (man made beliefs) as Jesus was…long story that I can share on another blog or you can see one of the links on this topic [see GoodnewsEverybody.com-Religious, World Religions, etc..].

Khayam R Wed, February 23, 2011 11:58:59 AM commented on your link: Hi Sal, rote: “andrew, i guess i have a more simplistic view. i need something to be detected with either my 5 senses or some sense of logic for me to believe in something. although i could see the logical argument for why there is a creator, i could also see the argument why there isn’t. from my perspective, there isn’t enough evidence for me to say for certain whether or not a creator exists, nor do i see any possible way of proving it to anyone.”

Andrew H Wed, February 23, 2011 12:11:26 PM commented on your link. Hi Sal, “but the need for detection of sense and logic is founded ONLY on belief. that is where I think those who endorse the scientific method and those who don’t are equal…”

Sal: God gave us “free will”, which we can choose to “believe” or “not to believe” the “evidence” around us. He’s not going to “make us” believe Him!

Andrew H commented on your link. Wed, February 23, 2011 12:13:34 PM wrote: “which foundation is better? I guess we’ve conceded this. But we must admit that they are equal in that respect; requiring evidence and not. both are mere beliefs; nothing more. what everyone I believe is arguing all the time is that one is better than another. But it isn’t because of evidence I don’t think.”

Andrew H Wed, February 23, 2011 12:16:02 PM commented on your link. wrote: “Do you think that you could prove that evidence is a good means to get to truth?”

Khayam R Wed, February 23, 2011 12:16:34 PM commented on your link. wrote: “andrew, i don’t think it’s really about which is better. i think in order to find evidence, you do need some sense of intuition. after that, the evidence should put itself together. it’s a lot like a jig saw puzzle. take some guesses, repeat trial and error, but by the end, the pieces should clue you in on where the next piece goes.”

Sal: One needs to know what they are specifically looking for when “searching” for “evidence”. Do you know what you are looking for?

“But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you seek him with all your heart and with all your soul.”-Deuteronomy 4

Khayam R commented on your link. Wed, February 23, 2011 12:18:26 PM wrote: “andrew, i guess that would depend on what we’re talking about. i don’t think i could ever find evidence for a creator because i wouldn’t even know where to begin.”

Andrew H commented on your link. Wed, February 23, 2011 12:22:37 PM wrote: “I’m just criticizing the scientific method I guess. Endorsing it cannot be proven through the scientific method if we’re truly to uphold logic. Its importance must be taken on faith. That being said, what truly separates other matters of faith and the scientific method might not be what we think. But ultimately, I think we’ve agreed that faith is important and some things need to be accepted on BLIND faith (like logic and science). But from the sounds of it, Ben Stein was strawmanning people left and right and saying that religion was contrary to science. I guess I was just trying to bring things back down to equal respects in terms of accepting on faith or not.”

Khayam R Wed, February 23, 2011 12:34:40 PM commented on your link. wrote: “andrew, i don’t see the need for criticizing the scientific method. it allows you to use your faith and intuition when proposing a question, doing the research, and forming a hypothesis. i guess the thing that makes me skeptical of intelligent design is that it only works up to the 3rd step of the scientific method. that’s fine if we’re talking about religion, but the problem is they are trying to say it’s a science.”

Sal: To all the responses, I was trying to find a “better” video than “The Expelled” to “prove” creation and not sure if I could find one except this..

Ultimate Proof of Creation Pt 1 of 6

more is being updated as I’m “trying” reply to each question-comment…

Evolution

Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray Ian Sample, science correspondent @iansample Thu 17 Oct 2013 14.00 EDT theguardian.com
A haul of fossils found in Georgia suggests that half a dozen species of early human ancestor were actually all Homo erectus“..”Nobody has ever seen such a well-preserved skull from this period,” said Christoph Zollikofer, a professor at Zurich University’s Anthropological Institute, who worked on the remains. “This is the first complete skull of an adult early Homo. They simply did not exist before,” he said. Homo is the genus of great apes that emerged around 2.4m years ago and includes modern humans….

The analysis by Lordkipanidze also casts doubt on claims that a creature called Australopithecus sediba that lived in what is now South Africa around 1.9m years ago was a direct ancestor of modern humans. The species was discovered by Lee Berger at the University of Witwatersrand. He argued that it was premature to dismiss his finding and criticised the authors for failing to compare their fossils with the remains of A sediba…”

ASIA

-Philippines

Bones discovered in an island cave may be an early human species By Ben Guarino April 10 washingtonpost.com“…Please welcome a possible new member to our band of upright apes: Homo luzonensis, whose teeth and bones were discovered in a cave on the island of Luzon in the Philippines. The remains represent a newly discovered species, scientists concluded in a report published Wednesday in the journal Nature.

Our genus, the Homo in Homo sapiens, contains multitudes, including the thick-browed yet sophisticated Neanderthals and Homo erectus, a nearly 2 million-year-old species that may be our direct ancestor…

In 2007, Armand Mijares, an archaeologist at the University of the Philippines, asked his colleague Philip Piper to examine animal bones Mijares dug out of Callao Cave in Luzon. The expansive cave yawns open above a river plain. One limestone chamber is so large it houses a Catholic chapel. A deposit of bones in the entrance chamber goes back to the Pleistocene epoch, which lasted from 2.6 million to 11,700 years ago….”

Creation

Given the nature of the fossil record it’s not surprising that human fossils are exceedingly rare. So rare indeed that most anthropologists teaching in our colleges and universities have never had opportunity to work with original primate fossils. Most are confined to examining published data and casts and reproductions of the actual fossils. Still, counting single teeth and bones, human fossils have been found representing more than 6,000 individuals.7 Apes and monkeys are also rare in the fossil record though they are more numerous than human fossils. It should be noted that evolutionists generally refer to apes in the fossil record as “ape-like” creatures rather than apes. This avoids the embarrassment of saying apes evolved into apes…”